Sunday, November 16, 2014

bergoglio as the successor of Caiphas

bergoglio as the successor of Caiphas

[49] But one of them, named Caiphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: You know nothing. [50] Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

[51] And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation. [52] And not only for the nation, but to gather together in one the children of God, that were dispersed. [53] From that day therefore they devised to put him to death.

-- Gospel According to Saint John 11:49-53

Even though it has become clear to serious observers that bergoglio is on a mission to destroy the Church, there is still some confusion as to "why" he is doing this... what are his motives?

Is it because he is a modernist?

Is it because he is a Jesuit?

Is it because he is a Latin American?

Is it because he is losing his marbles?

Isn't the simplest explanation that he hates the Church?

And if he hates the Church, can't this only be because he hates Christ?

Of course bergoglio is not going to say, "I hate Christ." Instead he tells us how much he loves Christ... except that bergoglio's "christ" has no resemblance to the Christ of the Gospel...

And bergoglio doesn't go around saying that he hates the Church, even though his every act gives that indication. Instead he says that he loves the Church... except the "church" bergoglio loves looks nothing like the Catholic Church.

The "church" that bergoglio loves is the One World Church where all men gather together to worship a false god in full harmony with a secular One World Government.

And in order to create that One World Church the One Church of Christ must be destroyed.

The Catholic Encyclopedia makes the following remark regarding Caiphas. [LINK]

"At a time when high-priests were made and unmade by officials of Rome, and when the principal quality required seems to have been subserviency, it is no credit to the character of Caiphas to have enjoyed their favour so long."

Well, the secular authorities certainly have shown their great love for bergoglio and he has certainly been subservient to them.

Caiphas declared that Jesus must die "for the people" so that the whole nation would not perish.

St. John explains that this was prophetic and that Jesus had to die "not only for the nation, but to gather together in one the children of God, that were dispersed."

Now bergoglio tells us that he wants to "gather together in one the children of God", but bergoglio's "god" is not the Catholic God.

If his "god" is not the One Catholic God, then it must be an anti-god which can be none other than satan.

We know that the Crucifixion of Christ was required in order to redeem our souls... and now it seems that God is prepared to sacrifice the Mystical Body of Christ...

... for what reason and purpose, we do not know...

... and bergoglio is the high priest who unwittingly and unknowingly is executing God's plan...

... the Church is dead as I stated in my previous post... now is the time to go to the desert... to pray... and wait...

"Come, Lord Jesus."


  1. In reading the link you posted to Caiphas, one learns that Annas still played a role in the government of the temple. Isn't it interesting that at this time Benedict XVI still retains the title of pope, although with the qualifier " emeritus", wears papal garb, attends official ceremonies, and just last week weighed in on moral doctrine on communion for the divorced and remarried. The parallel to Scripture is quite profound.

    1. Dear friend,

      That is a very interesting observation indeed and certainly not one that I had considered.

      Personally, I totally reject the "novelty" of a "pope emeritus". This is Ratzinger up to his old "progressive" Vatican II tricks. So to associate Ratzinger with another one of the high priests that had a hand in crucifying Christ is very interesting indeed...

      Lately I have been reflecting on when Our Lord described the pharisees as white-washed tombs. This could be an apt description of bergoglio. One can just imagine the rot and worms inside.

      "You are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness. [28] So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."
      - Matthew 23:27-28

      And also the white papal robes do not become bergoglio at all. He wears his black pants and black shoes underneath them. Truly he is the "black pope".

      Yours in Christ,

  2. It is difficult to keep one's judgments to the exterior forum of a man, i.e.: to his actions and speeches, without going beyond that but try we must. Nonetheless, I am interested in the title "black pope". What is its meaning and origin? Why do you think Francis may be the black pope?

    It has been noted on many Catholic fora that most of the actions and speeches of this papal claimant are done unofficially or through the office of the Bishop of Rome, not pope. We know, like three of his predecessors, he chose not to be crowned with the triple tiara, and Benedict XVI only used the bishop's mitre in his insignia. Are they trying to tell us that they really do not have the powers of the keys? It's all so cryptic as so be bordering on Gnosticism.

    1. Hello dear friend,

      The "black pope" is a sort of nickname for the superior general of the Jesuits. I think this is in recognition of the power of that order in the past. It also refers to the black garb of the Jesuit superior general in contrast to the white of the pope.

      And of course bergoglio is a Jesuit and the first Jesuit to ever become pope. I watched one video where you could clearly see the black pants through the white cassock. And of course, the black shoes...

      It looks horrible, but it could be easily ignored if only there was something interior in the man that gave off some "light" or "clarity". But all that comes out of him is darkness and confusion.

      I had noticed previously the point you made about Ratzinger dropping the tiara from his insignia. I was even thinking of writing a post about it. With each of the post VII popes there has been a demotion of the tiara and Ratzinger is NOT an exception. He's a sly one and one to watch out for. I was not on to him until after he announced his retirement... then it all began to become clear.

      Ratzinger was a key player in VII. He was instrumental in the destruction of the Holy Office. That cleared the way for heretic theologians (i.e. Ratzinger and friends) to peddle their scandalous ideas to the laity by abolishing the index of forbidden books -- basically stripping the Holy Office of any authority.

      That was replaced by the CDF and who became the head of the CDF? Yes, Ratzinger!

      And then he "converted" to a "conservative" and made many traditional sounding proclamations, but knowing that they would be ignored because the CDF had no authority. Its as if he was deliberately creating a smoke screen to confuse tradition-minded Catholics.

      And then Ratzinger became pope and created an even bigger smoke screen with the so-called "extraordinary" form of the Mass. How confusing is that terminology -- and even derogatory.

      Not to mention of course his trademark "hermeneutic of continuity" which was the biggest smoke screen of all to keep faithful Catholics from seeing VII for the revolutionary putsch that it really was.

      Mundabor has said that bergoglio is too dumb to be an anti-Christ and my retort is that if you are looking for a clever fellow who could really pull off the wolf in sheeps clothing costume and make it look convincing then look no further than Ratzinger/Benedict.

      Yours in Christ,

  3. In response to your comments about Cardinal Ratzinger's intelligence, his early involvement with Vatican II, changing and heading the CDF, appeasing/luring traditionalists with his Motu Proprio and in general, having a long career in the upper management of the Church and being in an unprecedented retirement ( in that he is still really involved in the decisions and ceremonies of the Church), I too would keep my eye on his movements. It is even clearer to me, with knowing Ratzinger's career, that your initial comparison of Francis to Caiphas makes the connection of Benedict XVI to Annas even stronger. I pray to learn to love my enemies, and do pray for them as Christ did His but it is still hard watching the dismantling of the papacy.

    I thank you for your explanation of the black pope.
    Yours in Christ,
    a grateful friend